A little while ago I thought of an example that is simple but seems very powerful in illustrating how compelling the explanation suggested in the preceding posts for the role of the additional specificity provided by "to the security" in the Amendment.
Suppose that someone you know had no access to his car so he comes asking to use yours to go to the supermarket saying:
I want to borrow your car keys to go to the supermarket.
You pull the keys from your pocket and give them to him saying:
Okay, go to the supermarket.
There is no problem here.
Now just imagine that your answer was instead:
Okay, go to the supermarket to shop.
How probable is it that that person would respond saying:
Why else would I go to the supermarket?
Do you see how the additional specificity provided by this simple addition of "to shop" made the other party question your position regarding the relationship between people ( or at least this person) and supermarkets (or at least a supermarket intended there)?
No comments:
Post a Comment